JUDGMENT By the Court.—Since the respondents have already filed counter-affidavit, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and on the basis of the pleadings available on record the writ petition may be heard and decided. Learned Standing Counsel did not object to the said request and, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court at the admission stage. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the State Government has imposed punishment of recovery of Rs. 6,955/- upon the petitioner, besides censure entry, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. 3. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 28.8.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) containing two charges. The petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges whereafter oral inquiry was conducted by Chief Engineer, Azamgarh Region P.W.D., Azamgarh who submitted his inquiry report dated 25.2.2004 holding both the charges not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreeing with the inquiry report, issued show cause notice dated 30.7.2004 holding the petitioner guilty of one of the charge with respect to repair of Bansdih-Sahatwar road wherein it is alleged that the thickness of the crust was found less than the prescribed norms for which the petitioner was guilty and consequently he was directed to make representation, if any, within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.10.2004 whereafter the impugned order of punishment has been passed by respondent No. 1 imposing the aforesaid punishments. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceeding conducted by the respondent No. 1 after receiving inquiry report, wherein the petitioner was exonerated of both the charges, is clearly illegal and contrary to Rule 9 (2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "1999 Rules"). He has submitted that no finding has been recorded by the disciplinary authority on disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and the show cause notice dated 30.7.2004 does not contain any finding and reasons at all which were required to be recorded by the disciplinary authority while showing its disagreement under the rules, and, hence, the entire subsequent order of punishment is also illegal. 5. 5. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit wherein the facts as stated are not disputed. However it is submitted that the disciplinary authority found one of the charge proved against the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order of punishment has been issued which is absolutely correct and in accordance with law. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Rule 9 of 1999 Rules provides for action to be taken on inquiry report and reads as under : "9. Action on Inquiry Report.—(1) The Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority of the charges and informed him accordingly. (4) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regards to its findings on all or any of the charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The Disciplinary Authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant." 8. It is not in dispute and the inquiry report also fortify the fact that the findings were recorded by the inquiry officer holding both the charges not proved against the petitioner. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary authority disagree with the findings of inquiry officer, Rule 9(2) of 1999 Rules require the disciplinary authority to record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary authority disagree with the findings of inquiry officer, Rule 9(2) of 1999 Rules require the disciplinary authority to record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. It would be prudent to reproduce the alleged findings and reasons contained in the notice dated 30.7.2004 issued by disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer, vide para 2 of the said order : ^^2- tkap vf/kdkjh dh tkap fjiksVZ ij fopkjksijkUr kklu }kjk fHkUu er fLFkj djrs gq, ;g ik;k x;k fd ckalMhg lrgokj ekxZ ds ejEer ds dk;Z esa iz;qDr fd;s x;s iRFkj esa dzLV dh ywt eksVkbZ 17-05 ls0eh0 vFkkZr~ dqVkbZ ds ckn dzLV dh vkSlr 13-75 ls0eh0 gksuh pkfg, ijUrq izkfof/kd lEijh{kk dks"Vd }kjk LFkyh; tkap esa dzLV dh vkSlr eksVkbZ 5-25 ls0eh0 ikbZ xbZA vr% dzLV dh eksVkbZ esa 8-5 ls0eh0 vFkkZr~ 61-8 izfrkr dh deh ik;h x;h vkSj blds fy, vki mRrjnk;h ik;s x;s gSaA** 9. A perusal of the aforesaid makes it clear that the same is nothing but reproduction of charge No. 2 levelled against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 28.8.2003. The Court is unable to find out any finding or reasons of the disciplinary authority for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer and in our view it is only a conclusion that the aforesaid charge is proved against the petitioner. Para 2 of the notice dated 30.7.2004 cannot be said to contain any finding and reason and on the contrary it is only, at the best, a conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority without recording its finding and reasons as mandated under Rule 9(2) of 1999 Rules. 10. Reasons are the link between the order and the mind of the maker and when rules require recording of reasons, it is a sine qua non and condition precedent for a valid order. In M.J. Sivani and others v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1995 SC 1770 the Apex Court in para 32 of the judgement held as under : "32. ........Reasons are the link between the order and the mind of its maker. When rules direct to record reasons, it is a sine qua non and condition precedent for valid order. In M.J. Sivani and others v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1995 SC 1770 the Apex Court in para 32 of the judgement held as under : "32. ........Reasons are the link between the order and the mind of its maker. When rules direct to record reasons, it is a sine qua non and condition precedent for valid order. Appropriate brief reasons, though not like a judgment, are necessary concomitant for a valid order in support of the action or decision taken by the authority or its instrumentality or the State. Normally it must be communicated to the affected party that he may have an opportunity to have it tested in an appropriate forum." 11. Para 2 of the notice dated 30.7.2004, which has been quoted does not conform to the requirement of Rule 9(2) of 1999 Rules and in the circumstances the impugned order of punishment passed pursuant to such order also cannot be sustained. 12. In taking the aforesaid view, we are fortified by a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25394 of 2002 (Shiv Shanker Lal v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 15.11.2006 wherein similar circumstances, the order impugned in the said writ petition was set aside for non-compliance of Rule 9(2) of 1999 Rules. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner conforming with the requirement of Rule 9(2) of 1999 Rules, if it so decides and may pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The exercise, as directed above, be completed within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the competent authority. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 2000/-. ————